In “What is Composition and (if you know
what that is) Why do We Teach it?” David Bartholomae reaches towards a
composition which extends beyond the purely mechanical as he says “I find
myself trying to articulate a position for composition between critical
negation and carelessness. Or, to put it another way, I want to try to imagine
a way for composition to name a critical project, one that is local, one whose
effects will be necessarily limited, but one, still, of significant
consequence.” (24). It seems to me that he is arguing for teaching a kind of
critical writing in the same way that we teach critical reading. While on
paper this idea seems ideal and easily accomplished I have concerns about its
viability in relation to the power dynamics between student and teacher. Can we
reasonably expect all teachers to be able to foster this critical reflection on
the vast array of topics in the kinds of classes where students are invited to
write on all topics and largely from personal experiences? When expecting a
composition teacher to adequately critique or lead a student in critique of
many topics what happens when a teacher is faced with a student writing on a
topic with which the teacher is unprepared to critically engage? How does one
navigate such possibilities while maintaining the authority which the student
comes to their teacher with in the first place?
In
his article Fulkerson expresses constant concern over teachers who are failing
to put into practice the theory they profess, or at least who practice conflicting
concepts in the classroom that work against their professed ideology. He says “a real example of what seems to me a
conflict between professed axiology and pedagogical practice is recounted in
Robert Brooke and John Hendrick’s Audience
Expectation and Teacher Demands. Brooke wanted to teach a course using
rhetorical axiology and also dealing with the pedagogical problem: how can we
teach writing for an audience in an institutional setting where students know
that the teacher, not the addressed audience assigns the grade” (423). He
continues to detail how a proposed lesson attempts to focus its axiology around writing for an audience but chooses to have students write in forms (outlines and issue
trees) which are not intended for audiences. While Fulkerson takes issue with
the non-audience oriented forms in which students are asked to write
specifically for an audience I am unsure if the issue is not deeper. Is it
possible for any assignment based around writing for an audience that takes place
in a class to ever be written for any audience other that the teacher? Even as
students may orientate their assignments toward other possible audiences, as
instructed, they are still aware that their grades and work is going to be given
to the instructor and that it is, in reality, the instructor who is their audience.
How does this lead students to write in performative instead of natural ways?
If a student is writing a persuasive speech with the audience of a local town hall for
the city in which they are from they may choose to include specific local issues
or local vernacular to appeal to that audience. But how does the locus of
authority in the classroom that is centered around the instructor shift any students writing away from their natural voice
and towards a performed academic tone which they expect the instructor wants? Does the very basis of academic instruction not create better writers but writers who sound more academic?
Hi Adam,
ReplyDeleteI also found myself questioning the struggle of addressing an audience in your writing knowing that the supposed audience is not the true audience who will be reading the piece. I think it is possible to write for alternative audiences, but it can only be done through an encouragement of imagination and understanding that one must ignore anxieties associated with the interaction of the classroom power dynamic. I tend to believe that all writing is a performance, and remains so due to the factor of audience. Even if the audience is the writer, the writing will be influenced by expectations and varying taste. Natural writing is more or less a person’s train of thought, or their default style and execution of voice that has been heavily influenced by mentors and instructors. The extent to which a student will alter their performance is dependent on the perceived expectations that they believe they must reach. This leads me to question what exactly natural writing means, or in what genre this writing takes form. Creative writing would probably be considered natural writing more so than academic, but both genres require a voice. This voice is developed by performative expectations, and is tweaked as a writer writes differing pieces and goes through revision. Different genres and topics are geared to different audiences, but that does not mean the performance will be insincere.
Any instructor has the power to either elevate and develop confidence in their students’ voices, or create a sense of doubt and insecurity that leaves students scrambling to use strange synonyms and alter the way that they would normally express their thoughts. Teaching academic styles of writing should allow for a new performative role that a student’s writing voice can take on. I think that instructors and textual exposure influences the growth of student writing. When this is done in an understanding environment the exposure to academic writing style should result in growth rather than a stifling of existing performative writing voices.